group_mapping.ldb and 3.0.25

Gerald (Jerry) Carter jerry at
Tue Feb 20 01:43:11 GMT 2007

Hash: SHA1

Hey Tridge,

> Jerry,
> In previous discussions of ldb in Samba3 I was told 
> that we should start small, with just one db, to
> see how it goes. That seemed like a quite sensible
> approach. What has changed?

It is a reasonable approach.  And nothing has really
changed.  This is mainly release time triage.

I cannot currently accept the role as a guinea pig for
ldb.  It has nothing to do with ldb.  Which is why I also
told Volker that I would reject any alternative approaches
to solve the multi-index problem that started all of this.
I only want to get 3.0.25 released right now.  Adding ldb
makes more work for me with very little payoff in the
group mapping code.  Being a lab rat is all and good,
but I'm just a little overworked to take this on right now.

>> The ldb code should of course stay in SAMBA_3_0, but I
>> am reverting group_mapping to use the tdb API in order
>> to make it easier to swap between the two branches for
>> now.
> Perhaps we should revisit the decision to not have 
> a configuration option? I had proposed a smb.conf
> option to choose between the tdb and ldb backends
> for group_mapping. To support that, I left the old tdb
> code in groupdb/mapping_tdb.c and made the APIs exactly 
> compatible.

I know.  And I appreciate the initial work you did.  Which is
one reason why I fell bad about not being able to see it through
into this release.  Based on your work load and mine, I feel
this is the best decision.  We've taken a lot in from Samba 4
lately (Volker's inotify work, the ongoing pidl work, etc...)
that its a lot to digest right now.

> If we put in an option, then that would allow us to try 
> out ldb in production Samba code, while still making it
> easy to swap between releases.
> What I would like to see is every long lived database 
> converted from tdb to ldb. Having long lived databases
> in a format that cannot be sanely edited by an administrator
> is a bad idea, and the only method we currently have
> of achieving that is to use ldb.

Converting all the existing tdbs to ldb is a noble idea.
One of which I would like to see.  I just cannot commit
resources to this right now and no one working on Samba
3.0.x seems to feel really confident in our ability to
deal with ldb on top of everything else.

Thanks for understanding.

cheers, jerry
Samba                                    -------
Centeris                         -----------
"What man is a man who does not make the world better?"      --Balian
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the samba-technical mailing list